If the racist Australian Government succeeds in its prosecution of Brendon O'Connell, in which the State argues that an accusation of racism is itself a racist act, then Australia's Aborigines may face similar prosecutions if every they accuse the racist Australian Government of racism, or should they ever accuse "whites", "Europeans", "Christians", "Jews", or anyone else of racism.

The Australian Government claims it is a crime to make an accusation of racism against a State-protected group. The Australian Government has served no notice on the public of which groups it will shield from criticism. Australians live under the constant threat of government harassment and selective prosecution if ever they should dare to accuse a racist group of racism.

The Government of Australia has always been a racist institution from its inception up to the present day and shows no signs of relenting in its attacks on the Australia's native sons. As a wing of the British Crown, the Australian Government is oppressing critics of racism and denying them their fundamental human rights in the name of defeating racism. The hypocrisy and villainy of the Government of Australia knows no bounds.

The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 prevents the Australian Government from selectively enforcing the laws or denying its citizens equal protection under those laws. However, the Australian Government is violating the rights of its citizens to equal protection under the laws and is violating the The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 by granting racists immunity from public criticism while seeking to imprison those who accuse racists of racism. The Australian Government has turned The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 on its head and irrationally asserted that an accusation of racism is itself a racist act, thereby deliberately discouraging the community from combating racism by preventing the public from leveling the charge of racism at State-protected groups.

The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 was enacted pursuant to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and is purportedly a call to Australia's citizenry to combat racism. However, when Australia's citizens report racism, they are themselves arrested and charged with racism under successive legislation, as in the case of Brendon O'Connell. The Government has, erroneously and with malice, arbitrarily and without prior notice, defined accusations of racism as if racist acts.

The intended effect of the Government's action are to promote racism and shield racists from exposure, while imprisoning authentic critics of racism, contrary to the stated aims of the Statutes. In addition, the Statutes demand that Australians' rights to equal protection under the law be respected, while in practice, the Australian Government is harassing those who make accusations of racism, while shielding racists from criticism and stifling the public discourse about racists' racism:

"9 Racial discrimination to be unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

(1A) Where:

(a) a person requires another person to comply with a term, condition or requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case; and

(b) the other person does not or cannot comply with the term, condition or requirement; and Prohibition of racial discrimination Part II Section 10 Racial Discrimination Act 1975

(c) the requirement to comply has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, by persons of the same race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin as the other person, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life;

the act of requiring such compliance is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as an act involving a distinction based on, or an act done by reason of, the other person's race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

(2) A reference in this section to a human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life includes any right of a kind referred to in Article 5 of the Convention.

(3) This section does not apply in respect of the employment, or an application for the employment, of a person on a ship or aircraft (not being an Australian ship or aircraft) if that person was engaged, or applied, for that employment outside Australia.

(4) The succeeding provisions of this Part do not limit the generality of this section.

10 Rights to equality before the law

(1) If, by reason of, or of a provision of, a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin do not enjoy a right that is enjoyed by persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or enjoy a right to a more limited extent than persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, then, notwithstanding anything in that law, persons of the first-mentioned race, colour or national or ethnic origin shall, by force of this section, enjoy that right to the same extent as persons of that other race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

(2) A reference in subsection(1) to a right includes a reference to a right of a kind referred to in Article 5 of the Convention."

and,

"18D Exemptions

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment."

The prosecution of Brendon O'Connell, which irrationally and falsely defines an accusation by the public of racism, as if itself a racist act, violates the both the letter and the spirit of The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and must therefore end.

Instead of explaining why he called Eric Hufschmid on the telephone as recently as August of 2009 asking for his help, though Smith/Setters claims that Hufschmid is a Zionist Jew--instead of telling us the names of the alleged Mossad agents whose sister was his patron--Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters continues to try to exonerate Jewish financier and fraudster Bernard Madoff, which action has the effect of lessening the blow to the reputation of the Jews of having produced the worst convicted thief in human history. Smith/Setters grossly misrepresents the facts and falsely claimed at this late date that the first accusations against Madoff were made by him when he confessed to his sons. Smith/Setters' claim is demonstrably bogus.

Smith/Setters claims that his motivation for attempting to exonerate Madoff has always been to spare the American taxpayer of liability for Madoff's debts. If this were true, then why did not Smith/Setters call for the repeal of the laws which render the taxpayer liable for Madoff's debts, instead of making excuses for the worst convicted thief in human history, who just so happens to be a Jewish financier? Is Smith/Setters interested in cushioning the blow to the Jews, or sparing the taxpayer?

Smith/Setters has stated that he intends to interview Kay Griggs. Perhaps he can ask her about her Jewish roots and explore her family's old connections to Freemasonry. See my blog article:

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

(1). Assume that the Jews state that, "We Jews are racists because we are the 'chosen people' and God made us better than everyone else so that we would rule over the other races [Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6]." Could the Jews be prosecuted for the racial vilification of Jews for having called Jews racists? Since it is within the realm of possibility for the Jews to declare that Jews are racist such a situation could arise, leading to a contradiction in the law and its enforcement which demonstrates the unenforceability of the Act against Brendon O'Connell.

If the government is capable of prosecuting the Jews for asserting that Jews are racist, then the government is capable of accusing Jews of racism and in such a situation would itself violate the law by enforcing it, because the government would be alleging that the Jews are racist while concurrently prosecuting the Jews for alleging that the Jews are racist. If the government would exempt Jews from the law but prosecute non-Jews for making the same claim as exempt Jews, then the government is illegally selectively enforcing the law and is denying non-Jews equal protection of the law from Jews and from the racist government.

(2). The Australian government is arbitrarily and without proof defining racism as a if it is a racial trait, while at the same time tacitly denying that Jews could be racist by virtue of their race and therefore asserting that Jews are a superior race to other races which are racist, while concurrently tacitly accusing every member of Brendon O'Connell's race of being racist; for if racism is a racial trait and not the characteristic of a belief system, then the government itself is condemning each race of any person the government accuses of racism, because such persons are by government definition members of a race and racism is by government definition a contemptible racial trait. Therefore, the government is itself guilty of the crime of the vilification of Brendon O'Connell's race by virtue of the act of accusing him and his race of racial vilification while defining the act of accusing a government defined "race" of racism as if racism itself.

Monday, January 04, 2010

David "Musa" Pidcock has likened a proven liar to the family of the Messiah, and declared that legitimate critics of that liar are under the influence of the anti-Christ. Not only is his world-view fanatically religious, it represents the attitudes of the Talmud rather than Islam.

What is satanic or sadistic about asking a man his name? Who other than a crypto-Jew would view the asking of a man's birth name to be the actions of the anti-Messiah, that Jewish Messiah who will supposedly kill off the Goyim? I cannot imagine that the Koran raises objections to questioning a Jewish banker straight out of the "City of London" about his ridiculous apology for Bernard Madoff, or his frantic assertions that an old mockumentary declaring that the moonlandings were a hoax is a new authentic revelation proving that the moonlandings were a hoax--Pidcock's messiah is terribly fallible. Why would David "Musa" Pidcock go so far as to call such actions "sadistic" and part of the forces of anti-Christ, if indeed that is what Pidcock would have us believe?

Why would David "Musa" Pidcock want to sentence Europeans to death by stigmatizing them as if "Gog and Magog" and concurrently state that the Endtimes are upon us? How is David "Musa" Pidcock any different in a positive way from the Christian Zionists who would sentence Muslims and Russians to death by declaring that they are "Gog and Magog" while concurrently claiming that the Endtimes are upon us? Do not both provocations produce the same end result, an apocalyptic war between Muslims and Christians?

How does David "Musa" Pidcock differ from the likes of an Armin Vambery in a positive way and why do Muslim leaders lend him their ears? I do not know, and eagerly await "Musa's" explanation.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

In an interview with Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters, David "Musa" Pidcock laid the blame for the economic hardships Iranians and Gazans face squarely on the shoulders of their leadership, without also concurrently blaming the Israelis, World Jewry and the International Community for the sanctions they have placed on the Iranians and Gazan Palestinians. David "Musa" Pidcock also criticized Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush for employing Bible prophecy in their decision making, but not because such a practice is insane, but rather because Pidcock would prefer that they adopt his version of Muslim prophecy, which coincidentally coincides with the horrific and genocidal Endtimes the Jews are trying to artificially impose upon us. Pidcock wants us to believe that Europeans are "Gog and Magog" and that now is the time for the arrival of the Messiah and the Battle of Armageddon.

I do not see how Pidcock's pushing his religious apocalyptic views on World leaders differs in a positive way from Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush's views and practices. Perhaps Pidcock can explain what appears prima fascie as two sides of the same coin both pushing the same mutually destructive agenda on Christians and Muslims. Perhaps "Musa" can also tell us the names of any non-convert founders of his Islamic party in Britain and what, if any, connections his ancestors had to the Rothschild banking family.

I agree with "Musa" that Iranian and Gazan leaders share in the blame with the Jews for the woes of the Iranian and Palestinian Peoples, but we sharply differ on the role the Jews have played in the suffering of these Peoples. I think the Lion of Judah's share of the blame is more accurately placed on Jewry, than on subverted leaders. If Iran were to adopt a 0% interest rate on loans when inflation is much higher than that, they would be giving away money and fueling inflation while losing money on the loans. Either the government would have to make the loans, or the economy would collapse because no private party or bank would lose money by making such loans. When inflation is 34% it is not usurious to charge 35% interest on a loan. If the sanctions and other economic pressures were lifted against Iran, then inflation would be likely to fall and Pidcock should be calling for the lifting of sanctions and other economic pressures when addressing interest rates in Iran or Gaza.

"Ognir's" Torah scroll is all rolled up in a bunch and the stammering, babbling Irishman living in Switzerland is again begging me to grant him an interview, though he already knows that I have no desire to speak to him, a fact I made clear before he publicly aligned himself with "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" and Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters. I did once offer to interview "Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan in consideration for his disclosing the original birth names of "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" as well as the names of his parents and grandparents. How can we have faith in any name "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" offers us if we cannot independently verify it?

I should note that "Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan has consistently run damage control for his Jewish banking friend who is straight out of the "City of London", the center of international Jewish bankers. He is also a "go-to guy" for damage control for Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters.

"Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan rejected my offer to interview him with the pathetic cop out that he did not know the email address of "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'". Now that I have forced the three stooges to publicly reveal the fact that "Muhammad Rafeeq" is not the man's original birth name, "Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan is again trying to run damage control for his cartoon character friend and is again begging to talk to me. My original offer has been rejected, is withdrawn, and I will not make it again.

Here is my new offer. I will agree to interview "Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan, Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters and "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" (that's right the three stooges all together against poor little old me, three against one) if they all three come to Chicago at once and agree to have the interview videotaped in its entirety with their faces appearing in the interview and grant full rights to the interview and the full rights to broadcast it to me. I also demand that "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" himself first tell us all names he has used in his entire lifetime, including his original birth name and provide copies of his original birth certificate and passport, as well as telling us his parents' and grandparents' names and agrees to cooperate in the process of verifying the information. This is a reasonable request given that David "Musa" Pidcock has claimed that "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" has used pseudonyms on a regular basis and Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters believes "Rupert the Bear 'Rafiq'" does not want his original birth name made public. I also demand that "Ognir"/"Ringo"/Noel Ryan first tell us his, Ryan's, parents' and grandparents' full original birth names. I also demand that Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters first tell us his parents' and grandparents' full original birth names and the names of the alleged Mossad agents whose sister was his alleged patron, as well as her full original birth name and any married name she has, or has had, and if any of these persons or their relatives is engaged in the gold and/or jewelry trades. I further demand that Daryl Bradford Smith/Setters tell us the names of all of the Jews in the gold and/or jewelry trades whom he knows and disclose any assistance, including sums of money or gold, he has ever received from them.

There you have it, "Ringo". Since you are so desperate to talk to me, those are my terms which must be met in full within one week from 3 January 2010, at the conclusion of which time the offer will be withdrawn. If you lack funds perhaps British Intelligence might offer to pay your way, or maybe the CIA and/or Mossad would take an interest and fund you, or maybe "Rafeeq's" friends in the "City of London" could pay your way, I wouldn't know.